Analyze Sections

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

With no annotations, the description carries the full burden. It does disclose the computed metrics, the section-indexing semantics, the default blocking behavior, and the exact flagging thresholds (2 dB average drop, 3 dB peak proximity), which is meaningful behavioral detail. It omits anything about cost or side effects despite source defaulting to 'render'.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The output content is front-loaded, which is good, but the whole definition is a single dense paragraph and the trailing parenthetical about the build never arriving is editorial rather than operational. Every clause is informative, yet the structure makes it harder to scan than it needs to be.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

An output schema exists, so the description need not explain return values, yet it is otherwise reasonably complete for a nested-object analysis tool: it covers the sections format and flag semantics. The unexplained `source` parameter, which governs whether audio is rendered, is a real gap for an agent deciding how to invoke it.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 0%, so the description must compensate. It explains the `sections` object format with a concrete example and the bars-inclusive convention, and ties an omitted value to the `block` parameter. However, `project` and `source` (default 'render') receive no explanation at all.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description opens with a precise statement of what is computed per section (rms, peak, loudest/quietest 400 ms, dynamic range), which is far more specific than the tool name. It does not, however, explicitly distinguish itself from nearby siblings like analyze_structure, analyze_bars, or cmp_sections, so an agent must infer the boundary.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

There is no explicit when-to-use or when-not-to-use guidance and no named alternative, despite a crowded field of analyze_* and cmp_* siblings. The build/climax flag narrative hints at a diagnostic use case but never states it as guidance.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.